Sunday 30 November 2014

Clearing the air once again

On my article known as "Catholic Dogmas: Three things worthy of Death", the apostate known as xgamer_immortal or QuinQue Viae made some comments which I am just going to tackle.

"These articles of late from you are laughably bad, bobo. First off, if I bother to respond to you this time, would you be kind enough to actually engage me and read my rebuttals on my own blog and reply? Usually you just run because you have no clear answer to the questions I bring up."

If I don't know the answer, it's an issue that I haven't looked into. I explicitly state this in the description on my website:
"If you give me a question and don't have an immediate answer, it may be an issue I need to look into."

Carrying on.

"First off, you make no clear argument against "praying to saints" (I think you're talking about Saintly intercession as a general concept) besides saying it's, "ludicrous." Nice argument, pal. All the verses that urge for prayer on one's behalf.. all the verses that show Angels praying on the behalf and interceding for Man. The statement by Jesus discussing the role of Guardian Angels in an intercessory manner. The Jewish precedent and oral traditions regarding saintly intercession.All of that is simply dismissed by the "King of exegesis" bobo by saying it's, "ludicrous." And you seriously wonder why people like Sam Shamoun don't want clowns like you around anymore?"

Sam Shamoun and I, not to bore one with details, did at one stage separate after a spat. Furthermore, we put our little spat behind us this year.

Furthermore, during the time we didn't converse, Liars sprang up to claim that Shamoun was cloning me, when he did NO such thing and I repudiated the claim in the room. Whoever brought it up first I forget, but both Quin (as xgamer) and cbd94, both kept claiming that I was saying Shamoun was cloning me, when I said in the room OVER AND OVER AGAIN "The Sam Shamoun I know would NEVER do that."

Despite pointing out I NEVER made the claim, cbd94 persisted saying so and xgamer threatened to dob me and jonnykzj in, for something he and I never said. Talk about despicable.

There are other false claims that I have refuted on my website but I just wanted to get these issues out the way.

Next, I didn't just say that the point about praying to saints was ludicrous and not back it up. Here is what I have said:
"Isaiah makes the following point to his people in chapter 8 of his book:
"Isaiah 8:19 When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. 21 Distressed and hungry, they will roam through the land; when they are famished, they will become enraged and, looking upward, will curse their king and their God. 22 Then they will look toward the earth and see only distress and darkness and fearful gloom, and they will be thrust into utter darkness."

Praying to dead saints and ask them to pray for you is not on the cards, they cannot hear you, you cannot hear them and only Christ can hear you.

Mary also cannot hear your prayers, nor can you hear her. 

To beseech the dead saints and consult them is ludicrous. 

Necromancy is witchcraft and should not be considered by Christians. That's strike one."

The fact the saints are dead, though they are alive in Christ and the fact that the book of Isaiah condemns Necromancy, shows how ludicrous the Catholic doctrine of praying to saints is. So much for claiming I never made a clear argument.

Also, Angels praying on man's behalf, doesn't justify prayers to Mary, or seeking her and the saints intercession.

"Also your exegesis of John 6 is absolutely hideous. You make these absurd esoteric connections (Oh to drink my blood is really to spread the gospel) when denying the historical context and the actual koine greek of the passage. Tell me bobo, can you find me a single instance of the NT, LXX, Apocryphal literature, or any time in Koine Greek where the word "trogo" means something symbolic? You are going against the basic reading and performing absolute mental gymnastics since you're trapped."

Others such as Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries and Jon Bloom of Desiring God have made the point of eating is believing and that it is a valid point. The point is eating and drinking in John 6 is referring to believing in his Gospel, his teaching and that those teachings are the key to eternal life.

Furthermore, Keith Thompson points out the following about trogo:
"Catholic argument #3: Catholics such as Robert Sungenis argue that because Jesus switches from using the Greek word phagō in vv. 50, 51, 53, which can mean to eat literally or metaphorically, to using the Greek word trōgō in vv. 54, 56, 57, 58 which, according to Sungenis, only means to literally eat or chew, that therefore Jesus must have switched to teaching people are not only eat his body symbolically, but literally as well, that is, in the Catholic Mass (Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone, [Queenship Publishing, 2000], pp. 183-185). Yet, although this type of argument convinces certain people, it is inaccurate. The word trōgō can have a non-literal meaning just as phagō can. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words notes that in regards to John 6’s usage, “The use in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18 is a witness against pressing into the meaning of the word the sense of munching or gnawing; it had largely lost this sense in its common usage” (W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words , [Thomas Nelson Inc., 1996], p. 193). This work is arguing Matthew 24:38 and John 13:18 show the word could be employed symbolically and that at this time this was common. Sungenis’s attempted response of Vine’s citations is unconvincing since for example in the case of Matthew 24:38, contra Sungenis, “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” are all clearly used symbolically of people just living life without care for what Noah was saying before the flood. Hence, this eating can be used symbolically for other things. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament also notes trōgō can be used “figuratively” (Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, [Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2009], p. 632). Sungenis also refutes his own argument since he cites Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich’s 1979 tome A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature as providing two examples of trōgō in classical Greek taking on a symbolic meaning. Sungenis fails to refute that work to show contextually the two instances it cites do not prove the point. This widely embraced lexicon is the scholarly standard and so if Sungenis wishes to refute what it is saying here then he has to do more than merely claim, as he simply does, the two examples cited by it do not prove the point. The two examples are Aristophenes in the fifth century B. C. using the word to say “the one eating my bread” figuratively and Polybius in the second century B. C. using it to say “two brothers eat” which are examples of comradeship and not literal eating according to that source. Moreover, in explaining why there is a change from phagō to trōgō in Jesus’ sermon, D. A. Carson notes, “It is far more likely that John injects no new meaning by selecting this verb, but prefers this verb when he opts for the Greek present tense (similarly in 13:18)” (D. A. Carson, JohnThe Pillar New Testament Commentary, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1991], p. 296)."


"Robert Sungenis argues,

“. . . no passage of the Old and New Testament commands anyone to drink blood, not even as a metaphor. Yet the Bible uses the drinking of both water literally (John 4:13; Romans 12:20) and figuratively (John 4:10-15; 7:38). Hence, since the rest of the New Testament never uses drinking blood as a metaphor for believing in Jesus, it certainly begs the question for opponents to claim it is metaphor in John 6. Similarly, nowhere other than in John 6 does either the Old or New Testament ever command anyone to eat the flesh of either God or Christ, even as a metaphor” (Robert Sungenis,Not by Bread Alone, [Queenship Publishing, 2000], p. 178).

The obvious error in Sungenis’s reasoning is that just because the Bible does not employ a metaphor except for in one story or episode, does not mean it is not a metaphor. For, Jesus is only called “the door” metaphorically in one episode (John 10:7-9). Sungenis even admits this when he says “John 10 is the only time that Jesus says, ‘I am the door,’ or even referred to as a door in all of Scripture” (Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone, [Queenship Publishing, 2000], p. 183). God is never referred to metaphorically as a door in the Old Testament either. Just because God or Christ as a metaphorical door is not found in Scripture does not mean John 10:7-9 is not teaching Jesus is a metaphorical and non-literal door. Similarly, just because drinking blood and eating flesh as a metaphor for believing Jesus is not used widely in the Bible, that does not mean in John 6 it is not uniquely metaphorical."

(Keith Thompson, Proof the Roman Catholic Mass is unbiblical and anti-Christian:

"I plan to write a response to you on my own blog (which is doing very well) but I honestly don't even know if it's worth it anymore. You've shown a rather desperate attempt at fighting Catholic Dogmas and your newest article is laughably bad."

Saying so doesn't make it so.

"Funny enough, Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote an article about this as of late:

I would like to think you'd read it and learn something, but based upon past experiences that is extremely unlikely."

If I choose to read something, that is between me and God. If he wills, I'll be happy to take a look.

That's all I have to say for now.


  1. So, who interprets the Bible correctly? You, or the 40,000 other Protestant denominations? I need to make a choice, because Jesus said "He who believeth and is baptized will be saved." So I need to know what *exactly* to believe - because if I disbelieve a single thing that Jesus taught, I can't be saved. So, is it you - or one of the 40,000?

    1. You realise there are not 40,000 Protestant denominations? That number you appeal to has at least 8900 or so Protestant ones and guess what, there are at least 240-270 or so Roman Catholic denominations.

    2. As James White notes:
      "This source lists 781 “Orthodox” denominations (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy), predicting 887 for 2025.
      This source lists 242 “Roman Catholic” denominations for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.
      Do either of these groups arise from the Reformation? Of course not! Instead, continuing on page 16, the over-arching group “Protestant” is listed as having 8,973 denominations in 2000, predicting 9490 by 2025. If we stop just here, this means Steve Ray and Tim Staples are off by 24,000 denominations in their oft-repeated claims, i.e., the actual number in the source is only 27% of the number they give. They are inflating the number by more than 300%! Why? Are they simply going on second-hand references without ever even looking at the sources? Or are they being dishonest? Which is it?"

      Also, feel free to take a look at this video:


    Ah didn't realize you made another post about me. Once again you dodged the original topic (Sola Scriptrua & the Jewish acceptance of Saintly Intercession) and are now rambling about the Real Presence. None of your arguments hold up, I'll have to make a blog post about this when I get a chance.

    But anyways your previous points about Saintly Intercession are finally debunked in my new post. It absolutely amazes me to see someone who says they are preaching to Jews not being able to grasp the simple Jewish concept of Saintly Intercession, which is prominent in jewish traditions and pre-Christian literature.

    1. Already responded to your post on Sola Scriptura. Never dodged anything liar.